Miki Filigranski (talk | contribs) |
Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
:::That is just your point of view. You do not understand what [[WP:UNDUE]] means. Take a loot at the article's size and then check out how much content you added, which only brings more confusion to the readers. And yes, you are destroying the article's GA status with it, it's quite possible. Second of all, Budak is no expert for early Serbian medieval history, unlike Tibor Z. If you do not like working with other editors and enjoy labeling other editors who disagree with you as "nationalist" (laughable), you could check out hr.wiki, maybe with your help they'll realise what happened in WWII. I do not own the article, BUT the article was stable and major changes like yours, need community consensus, which is something that you seem to be ignoring. I suggest that you undo yourself. '''[[User:Sadko|<span style="color:#EE8833;">Sadkσ</span>]]''' [[User talk:Sadko|<span style="color: #696969;">(talk is cheap)</span>]] 12:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC) |
:::That is just your point of view. You do not understand what [[WP:UNDUE]] means. Take a loot at the article's size and then check out how much content you added, which only brings more confusion to the readers. And yes, you are destroying the article's GA status with it, it's quite possible. Second of all, Budak is no expert for early Serbian medieval history, unlike Tibor Z. If you do not like working with other editors and enjoy labeling other editors who disagree with you as "nationalist" (laughable), you could check out hr.wiki, maybe with your help they'll realise what happened in WWII. I do not own the article, BUT the article was stable and major changes like yours, need community consensus, which is something that you seem to be ignoring. I suggest that you undo yourself. '''[[User:Sadko|<span style="color:#EE8833;">Sadkσ</span>]]''' [[User talk:Sadko|<span style="color: #696969;">(talk is cheap)</span>]] 12:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
::::Your comments are laughable. Saying that Budak is not an expert on Western South Slavic medieval history is pathetic nationalistic patronizing of specific time, space and topic. Budak and Živković studied, cited, and reviewed each other's work when studied the medieval history of the Western Balkans.--[[User:Miki Filigranski|Miki Filigranski]] ([[User talk:Miki Filigranski|talk]]) 13:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC) |
::::Your comments are laughable. Saying that Budak is not an expert on Western South Slavic medieval history is pathetic nationalistic patronizing of specific time, space and topic. Budak and Živković studied, cited, and reviewed each other's work when studied the medieval history of the Western Balkans.--[[User:Miki Filigranski|Miki Filigranski]] ([[User talk:Miki Filigranski|talk]]) 13:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::::[[WP:STONEWALLING]] lack of [[WP:ETIQUETTE]] and arrogant kiddo style of comment will not change the fact that Budak is not an expert on early Serb medieval history, which Viseslav of Serbia is a part of. '''[[User:Sadko|<span style="color:#EE8833;">Sadkσ</span>]]''' [[User talk:Sadko|<span style="color: #696969;">(talk is cheap)</span>]] 14:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:24, 1 January 2021
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Višeslav of Serbia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 11:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I will have a go at reviewing this, assume that most likely I'll have the full review for you by tomorrow (9th July, 2016). Mr rnddude (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | There's a few passages that need a bit of work.
A few other questions and fixes as well, Mr rnddude (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC):
That's all for now, Zoupan. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | There is a list of citations that have been correctly formatted. It even separates the primary sources from the secondary sources. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | The majority of sources used are published secondary sources, there are a couple of primary sources and what appears to be a tertiary source as well. This is fine. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | There does not appear to be any violation of copyright. A copy-vio check using Earwigs Copyvio Detector rated it unlikely with 18.0% confidence. Not ideal, but sufficient. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | I cannot judge this section entirely just yet.
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The article is delivered in a | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | The article is indeed in a stable condition. No editor's have been involved with the article at all since the GA/N and there does not appear to be any dispute currently or previously that has not been resolved. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | There are three images on the article, they have been tagged with the appropriate licences, one has an international share-alike attribution 4.0 license and the other two have been released into the public domain by their original owners. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The first image is of the ruler himself, clearly desirable in a biographical article. The second of the territory of Serbia in the following century, while not ideal, an eight century image might be better, it is perfectly suitable for the task. The third and final image is of what is likely the Serbian capital during Višeslav's rule, perfect both for subject matter and aesthetics. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Above is my review of the article. As I noted in the Overall section, there is a fair bit that needs doing before this article can get to GA. Most of it shouldn't take to long, if there are any problems please ping me or put a message on my talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Additional Sources; I'll just dump in sources as I come across them that may help you too expand the article, I'll go through them first and see if there is anything worth adding.
- Here is one secondary source from google books,[1]. I'm not sure how much access you have to sources, it's only one page, but if you could get a copy of the source, it may have something worthwhile in it.
- if you have access, this source may be useful for the background of the Slavic invasion; "Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series : The Making of the Slavs : History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c.500–700". If you don't have access to it, I can go through it and make a small couple paragraphs of any useful information I find.
- That's all for now, I still need to go through and re-read the article in its current state. Will do that soon, Mr rnddude (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ulwencreutz does not seem reliable. As for the Slavic settlement, doesn't that push the article further from its subject? There are some sources I could go through but I think that overall this is the best it can get. Thank you, I'll go through the last points in the next days.--Zoupan 03:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC) Added an annotation on Slavic settlement.--Zoupan 00:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I was worried about scope creep, so probably for the best not to extend the discussion further from Viseslav. Just ping me when you're ready for my final read through. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Mr rnddude: What do you think about it's state now?--Zoupan 23:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Zoupan, It's very close to GA but the Lede still doesn't cover the main aspects of the article. It does indeed discuss Viseslav and the rule of the Byzantine empire but makes no mention of 1. How Viselsav ascended to rulership and 2. His legacy on Serbia (mostly that his sons continued to rule in his stead). Other than this, the article is quite nicely put together and I can pass it for GA. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've expanded the lede so that it is clear that the rule was hereditary.--Zoupan 23:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Zoupan, It's very close to GA but the Lede still doesn't cover the main aspects of the article. It does indeed discuss Viseslav and the rule of the Byzantine empire but makes no mention of 1. How Viselsav ascended to rulership and 2. His legacy on Serbia (mostly that his sons continued to rule in his stead). Other than this, the article is quite nicely put together and I can pass it for GA. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Mr rnddude: What do you think about it's state now?--Zoupan 23:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I was worried about scope creep, so probably for the best not to extend the discussion further from Viseslav. Just ping me when you're ready for my final read through. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ulwencreutz does not seem reliable. As for the Slavic settlement, doesn't that push the article further from its subject? There are some sources I could go through but I think that overall this is the best it can get. Thank you, I'll go through the last points in the next days.--Zoupan 03:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC) Added an annotation on Slavic settlement.--Zoupan 00:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
End of Review Comments; The article now fits the requirements of the GA criteria. I'll be going through it later and cleaning up a couple very minor details that don't affect its status as a GA article. The coverage of the subject of the article may appear limited, this is because the subject himself is not generally greatly covered in literature, this has caused the scope to widen somewhat beyond just the subject to also encompass the neighbouring nations and peoples and the history of Serbia as a whole. A significant amount of work has been done to this article to bring it up to par, thanks for the efforts on the article Zoupan. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
DAI
Starting a discussion regarding the recent disruptive revert. @Sadko: what's the issue besides biased personal viewpoint?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Try again; learn how to talk to people, I believe that you are 18+ and that you know how to do so. This is no way to start any discussion. Notions of "biased personal viewpoints" are just laughable and it shows that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Same issue like at Talk:Narentines#DAI. Nobody WP:OWNs the article and article status does not imply that the article cannot be improved. The old revision was written from a Serbian historiographical POV only using selected sources as references. It was an obvious violation of WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE). If you don't like how it's done here you have Serbian Wikipedia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- That is just your point of view. You do not understand what WP:UNDUE means. Take a loot at the article's size and then check out how much content you added, which only brings more confusion to the readers. And yes, you are destroying the article's GA status with it, it's quite possible. Second of all, Budak is no expert for early Serbian medieval history, unlike Tibor Z. If you do not like working with other editors and enjoy labeling other editors who disagree with you as "nationalist" (laughable), you could check out hr.wiki, maybe with your help they'll realise what happened in WWII. I do not own the article, BUT the article was stable and major changes like yours, need community consensus, which is something that you seem to be ignoring. I suggest that you undo yourself. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Your comments are laughable. Saying that Budak is not an expert on Western South Slavic medieval history is pathetic nationalistic patronizing of specific time, space and topic. Budak and Živković studied, cited, and reviewed each other's work when studied the medieval history of the Western Balkans.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- WP:STONEWALLING lack of WP:ETIQUETTE and arrogant kiddo style of comment will not change the fact that Budak is not an expert on early Serb medieval history, which Viseslav of Serbia is a part of. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Your comments are laughable. Saying that Budak is not an expert on Western South Slavic medieval history is pathetic nationalistic patronizing of specific time, space and topic. Budak and Živković studied, cited, and reviewed each other's work when studied the medieval history of the Western Balkans.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- That is just your point of view. You do not understand what WP:UNDUE means. Take a loot at the article's size and then check out how much content you added, which only brings more confusion to the readers. And yes, you are destroying the article's GA status with it, it's quite possible. Second of all, Budak is no expert for early Serbian medieval history, unlike Tibor Z. If you do not like working with other editors and enjoy labeling other editors who disagree with you as "nationalist" (laughable), you could check out hr.wiki, maybe with your help they'll realise what happened in WWII. I do not own the article, BUT the article was stable and major changes like yours, need community consensus, which is something that you seem to be ignoring. I suggest that you undo yourself. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Same issue like at Talk:Narentines#DAI. Nobody WP:OWNs the article and article status does not imply that the article cannot be improved. The old revision was written from a Serbian historiographical POV only using selected sources as references. It was an obvious violation of WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE). If you don't like how it's done here you have Serbian Wikipedia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)